Curtain Down On Las Vegas Shooting

I appreciate all of your supportive comments about my efforts to tell the real from the fake elements in the Las Vegas shooting information.

As several of you noted, it could be a case where some people were shot from somewhere and fake elements were added to blow the scene into a massacre for use in behalf of some agenda or the other. A professor in Canada, who I know and to whose intelligence and integrity I can attest, reminded me that the Northwoods Project, a false flag attack proposal given to President John F. Kennedy by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to produce an excuse for invading Cuba, consisted of both real and fake elements. The professor analyzed the Northwoods proposal and provides this list of the fake/real mixture:

Dear Craig: I thank you for carrying an honest discussion on your website of the difficulties in sorting out whether Las Vegas victims were real or fake. I claim no expertise in this incident; I simply want to remind folks that there is no contradiction between claims of real injury and claims of fake injury. Why would the planners want to choose just one option? Way back in the early 1960s where they were planning the Northwoods operation, they envisioned both options in the operation. A couple of years ago I tried to sort out the planned victims and arrived at this list:

Victims:

[1] (capture: real victim, no injury, false identity) “Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs”
[2] (capture: real victim, no injury, false identity) “Capture assault teams approaching from the sea”
[3] (capture: real victim, no injury, false identity) “Capture militia group”
[4] (explosion; no victims/faked victims—apparently no actual personnel involved) “Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims”
[5] (explosion; no victims/faked victims– apparently no actual personnel involved) “We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters…The US could follow up with an air/sea operation covered by US fighters to ‘evacuate’ remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”
[6] (shooting? Real and/or simulated victims) “We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated).”
[7] (explosions + other? Real victims) “We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots…would be helpful”
[8] (explosion; faked victims—real personnel with false ids) “It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner…The passengers could be a group of college students…”
“At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases…”
“arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers…The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan…destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal.”
[9] (shooting; faked victim—real personnel with false id) [another scenario:] “a pre-briefed pilot…would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down…The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base…The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his identity and return to his normal place of business.” “The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew.”

After all these postings, where are we? It is pretty much as I thought it would be. All we really know is that there are more questions than we realized for which we have no answers. Perhaps the effort is justified by the question with which it leaves us: Why are there so many uncertainties about an event that should be transparent?

So this is it. No more unless some conclusive or dramatic evidence makes an appearance.

This site offers factual information and viewpoints that might be useful in arriving at an understanding of the events of our time. We believe that the information comes from reliable sources, but cannot guarantee the information to be free of mistakes and incorrect interpretations. IPE has no official position on any issue and does not necessarily endorse the statements of any contributor.